Page 14 of 69 FirstFirst ... 41011121314151617182464 ... LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 1023
  1. #196
    Joined
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    109

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.
    That's a lie.

  2. #197
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    ^^whats a lie? The quote or what the CBO said?


    Anyway

    Obey and "So What?" [Stephen Spruiell]

    There seems to be a false dichotomy emerging in the stimulus debate, that the package must either include earmarks or allow states and local governments to spend the money however they want. This understanding was the basis for House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey's comments to NPR, which made their way to Drudge's front page:
    U.S. Rep. David Obey (D-WI), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, helped write the bill and says he doesn't like being asked about earmarks.
    "We simply made a decision, which took about three seconds, not to have earmarks in the bill," he says. "And with all due respect, that's the least important question facing us on putting together this package."
    Leaving out the earmarks does mean Congress will have less control over how the money is spent. But, Obey says, "So what? This is an emergency. We've got to simply find a way to get this done as fast as possible and as well as possible, and that's what we're doing."
    That doesn't mean Congress will be responsible if the money is spent badly, he says.
    "The person who spends the money badly will be responsible. We are simply trying to build as many protections in as possible," Obey says. "We have more oversight built into this package than any package in the history of man. If money is spent badly, we want to know about it so we can hold accountable the people who made that choice. And guess what? Regardless of what we do, there will be some stupid decisions made."
    First, Obey's comment about the amount of oversight built into the package is false. Approximately 0.5 percent of the money is designated for oversight and accountability, which experts say is not nearly enough.
    Second, Congress doesn't have to fill the bill with earmarks in order to reduce the probability that state and local governments will waste the money. Taxpayer groups have submitted dozens of ideas, such as putting a "fix-it-first" requirement into the bill so that states are forced to spend their infrastructure money on maintenence and repairs before they can build highways and bridges to nowhere.
    Third, this bill actually takes several steps backwards in terms of accountability, because it waives state-matching requirements in so many areas of federal spending. Forcing states to put up at least a little of their own money increases the likelihood that they will spend it on local priorities. Giving them tons of no-strings-attached cash and telling them to spend it real fast increases the likelihood that they will waste it on projects of little benefit to anyone.
    Would there still be "some stupid decisions made," as Obey suggests? Of course. There will be a lot of stupid decisions made anytime governments and not markets are allocating economic resources. But past mistakes have shown us ways to help governments make fewer stupid decisions. Unfortunately, the principal architects of this stimulus bill ignored all those lessons in their haste to expand the size and scope of government as quickly as possible.
    02/06 02:58 PM

  3. #198
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    Our friend Dan looking at this stuff

    http://www.riehlworldview.com/carniv...wish-list.html

  4. #199
    Joined
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    5,177

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    Quote Originally Posted by Jagger View Post
    That's a lie.
    Can you please expand on this comment?

  5. #200
    Joined
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    109

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    Quote Originally Posted by mostholycerebus View Post
    Can you please expand on this comment?
    Here is a link to the February 4th letter/report from the CBO to Senator Judd Gregg.

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9619/Gregg.pdf

    Nowhere in the letter report does the CBO say that President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing.

    Here is the first paragraph of the letter report:

    At your request, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has conducted an analysis of the macroeconomic impact of the Inouye-Baucus amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1. CBO estimates that this Senate legislation would raise output and lower unemployment for several years, with effects broadly similar to those of H.R. 1 as introduced. In the longer run, the legislation would result in a slight decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) compared with CBO’s baseline economic forecast.
    Last edited by Jagger; 02-06-2009 at 05:21 PM.

  6. #201
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    Quote Originally Posted by Jagger View Post
    In the longer run, the legislation would result in a slight decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) compared with CBO’s baseline economic forecast
    Doesn't that qualify as hurting the economy?
    Brian

  7. #202
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,273

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    ^^^ From the story I linked... and you are correct...

    CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

    CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

    CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

    The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts.

    But Republicans and some moderate Democrats have balked at the size of the bill and at some of the spending items included in it, arguing they won't produce immediate jobs, which is the stated goal of the bill.

    The budget office had previously estimated service the debt due to the new spending could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the bill -- forcing the crowd-out.

    CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

    CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010.

    The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.

    CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  8. #203
    Joined
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    109

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    Quote Originally Posted by bk94si View Post
    Doesn't that qualify as hurting the economy?
    May I take that to mean that you have read the report and agree with me that it does not say that "President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing?"

    Are you inviting an intelligent discussion of the letter?

  9. #204
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,273

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    Charles dead on as usual...

    The Fierce Urgency of Pork

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Friday, February 6, 2009; A17

    "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe."

    -- President Obama, Feb. 4.



    Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.

    And so much for the promise to banish the money changers and influence peddlers from the temple. An ostentatious executive order banning lobbyists was immediately followed by the nomination of at least a dozen current or former lobbyists to high position. Followed by a Treasury secretary who allegedly couldn't understand the payroll tax provisions in his 1040. Followed by Tom Daschle, who had to fall on his sword according to the new Washington rule that no Cabinet can have more than one tax delinquent.

    The Daschle affair was more serious because his offense involved more than taxes. As Michael Kinsley once observed, in Washington the real scandal isn't what's illegal, but what's legal. Not paying taxes is one thing. But what made this case intolerable was the perfectly legal dealings that amassed Daschle $5.2 million in just two years.

    He'd been getting $1 million per year from a law firm. But he's not a lawyer, nor a registered lobbyist. You don't get paid this kind of money to instruct partners on the Senate markup process. You get it for picking up the phone and peddling influence.

    At least Tim Geithner, the tax-challenged Treasury secretary, had been working for years as a humble international civil servant earning non-stratospheric wages. Daschle, who had made another cool million a year (plus chauffeur and Caddy) for unspecified services to a pal's private equity firm, represented everything Obama said he'd come to Washington to upend.

    And yet more damaging to Obama's image than all the hypocrisies in the appointment process is his signature bill: the stimulus package. He inexplicably delegated the writing to Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the House. The product, which inevitably carries Obama's name, was not just bad, not just flawed, but a legislative abomination.

    It's not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It's not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.

    It's the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus -- and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress's own budget office says won't be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said.

    Not just to abolish but to create something new -- a new politics where the moneyed pork-barreling and corrupt logrolling of the past would give way to a bottom-up, grass-roots participatory democracy. That is what made Obama so dazzling and new. Turns out the "fierce urgency of now" includes $150 million for livestock (and honeybee and farm-raised fish) insurance.

    The Age of Obama begins with perhaps the greatest frenzy of old-politics influence peddling ever seen in Washington. By the time the stimulus bill reached the Senate, reports the Wall Street Journal, pharmaceutical and high-tech companies were lobbying furiously for a new plan to repatriate overseas profits that would yield major tax savings. California wine growers and Florida citrus producers were fighting to change a single phrase in one provision. Substituting "planted" for "ready to market" would mean a windfall garnered from a new "bonus depreciation" incentive.

    After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone.

    I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  10. #205
    Joined
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    109

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    My policy is actually read documents for myself, instead of relying on what someone says it says. Your policy appears to be to take someone's word and not bother to read the document for yourself.

    I find that rather naive.

    But, hey, that's just me.
    Last edited by Jagger; 02-06-2009 at 05:36 PM.

  11. #206
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Crazy AZ USA
    Posts
    3,516

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    Quote Originally Posted by Jagger View Post
    My policy is actually read documents for myself, instead of relying on what someone says it says. Your policy appears to be to take someone's word and not bother to read the document for yourself.

    I find that rather naive.

    But, hey, that's just me.
    Yep. One should clearly delineate opinion from fact & actual statement as much as possible. Terms like "I think" or "IMO" helps do that.

    It is sorely tempting to do and people slip at it.

    So, IMO, the ESP is a debt-ballooning public placebo that white-washes Washington for the short term and sets further precedence to railroad more pork-barrel laced fright legislation (like TARP) so that we can identify what hole the money went in, but have no idea wheretf it went.

  12. #207
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,273

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    Quote Originally Posted by Jagger View Post
    My policy is actually read documents for myself, instead of relying on what someone says it says. Your policy appears to be to take someone's word and not bother to read the document for yourself.

    I find that rather naive.

    But, hey, that's just me.
    Foregoing your assumption that I and the authors I linked did not read all 9 pages ourselves, my policies and your thoughts about them. I agree…reading is good. However, reading + understanding is even better. Perhaps you can better explain how this:

    Including the effects of both crowding out of private investment (which would reduce output in the long run) and possibly productive government investment (which could increase output), CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. H.R. 1, as passed by the House, would have similar long-run effects. CBO has not estimated the macroeconomic effects of the stimulus proposals year by year beyond 2011.
    is NOTan effect that can accurately described as hurting the economy. In your reply please describe how a shrinking GDP after spending over a trillion dollars is good for the economy as a whole.

    Wait a minute... then I'd be taking your word for it wouldn't I?!!

    Boy.. you are a crafty one.

    I'll stick to being “naïve” and believing that spending over a trillion dollars to shrink the GDP is bad & you stick believing... well.. whatever it is you believe.

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  13. #208
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,682

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    Front page

    http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=6741

    In The Lightning Round, the $825 billion bail out is the conversation of choice, with some rather insightful and incendiary comments to be found in this thread. There is a bailout happening that everyone will love, thanks to Ryan. Anyone who promises to participate in a BOINC project has a shot at their choice of free components. There are a limited amount of motherboards, HDD and other goodies to go around, so get your picks in quickly. If you are lucky enough to get one, it will be yours for free, shipping included. Head over to this thread in the BOINC forum and put those spare CPU cycles to good use, even if you don't get a free PC part.
    Last edited by jimzinsocal; 02-06-2009 at 07:11 PM.

  14. #209
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Yermo, CA, USA
    Age
    59
    Posts
    9,946

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    Last edited by JokerCPoC; 02-06-2009 at 07:31 PM.

  15. #210
    Joined
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    109

    Re: The $825B Economic Stimulus Package

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroSim View Post
    the ESP is a debt-ballooning public placebo that white-washes Washington for the short term and sets further precedence to railroad more pork-barrel laced fright legislation (like TARP) so that we can identify what hole the money went in, but have no idea wheretf it went.
    Have you got a better solution for our economic woes?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •